SAGAZONE Idiots sugesting we dont need the military

Discussion in 'The NAAFI Bar' started by abeaumont, Nov 12, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. OK, so the vast majority of you are far too young to join this....

    However, this has annoyed me intensely:

    If you cannot access this (you are supposed to be over 50 - years not IQ), the thread is one debating "Do we need the military?"

    Given that yesterday was the eleventh day of the eleventh month, I was deeply offended to read the following:

    "We certainly do not need them to defend ourselves from any would-be aggressor. We certainly do not need to conquer new parts of the globe. Has there ever been a justification for killing millions of innocent people? What war ever benefitted anyone? All wars could have been prevented so are the Armed Forces simply an expensive confession of our failure?

    Perhaps we should mark this Sunday with a demonstration against War rather than remembering those who were murdered by previous self-seeking politicians who behaved little better than gangsters."


    "It is not morally right to send people to die for the sake of their country. If it was a question of defending my country or my friends, I would choose my friends, some of whom might belong to a country on which we have declared war. When we (the British) killed Argentians over a piece of land best left to the sheep, did we also wish to kill Ossie Ardiles and Ricky Villa? because if we did then I for one say a very loud: "Not in my name". The Falkland Island adventure was a throwback to Suez and should be roundly condemned as the action of a deranged murderous politician who had lost her grip on reality, as had Sir Anthony Eden in the earlier shambles. The parallels are frightening. By the way I would take Borges's opinion any day over Neruda's either in matters literary or political.

    We do not need a military at all. They are no longer an effective offensive force as proved by their performances in Iraq and Afghanistan. As regards defence of the realm any conventional force would be wiped out within days of a nuclear attack. There is a requirement for training guerilla type forces to operate clandestinely and to maintain a small standing force in cases of emergency plus a few fighters and say a couple of submarines, but beyond that I see no purpose.

    Use tomorrow to cry out against those who murdered our ancestors and do not mock the dead by parading the usual bands of toy soldiers in our streets."

    At least this nutter has been blasted by some of the others. If you are as ancient as me (well, nearly as ancient as me), and there must be a few of you, perhaps you might like to join Sagazone as add a few broadsides.

    Kind regards to all

  2. Sorry mate, but you don't appear to be outraged enough.
  3. I agree.

    We should just hand the whole thing over to the UK police.
  4. The 9 million European Jews who were alive in 1939 would say no.

    The 2 million European Jews who were still alive in 1945 would say yes as far as WW2 was concerned.
  5. Let's not forget that good men died so we may all voice our own opinions. Even if some of them, like Adrian's are fuskin stoopid.

    Ps -

    We're all guilty of bandwagon-leaping when someone comes across an opinion like this on the interweb. Are we forgetting that the man (illegally) in power in this country had to read it's national anthem off a cue card? Or that he fell asleep during a Festival of Rememberance? Adraian's an insignificant cnut. Brown is, unfortunately, a significant (and significantly bigger) cnut.
  6. We do need the military when fires need to be put out, ambulances driven, cattle burning or rubbish collected.

    But does the military need to these things? No, but they are ordered too, and they crack on. Society doesnt know how lucky it is to have such a 'versatile' army, the ungrateful bastards

    This bit, is pure bollocks:

    Galtieri was an anti-semitic fascist nutjob in charge of a brutal police state, who took it upon himself to declare war against the British by invading sovereign territory and holding hostage 1800 Brits. Now her with the handbag may have appeared a bit deranged on the odd occasion, and certainly she scared me from time to time, but she was absolutely spot on about the need to act, and that a military operation was inevitable. Looking back now it is remarkable how Thatcher appears so very rational compared with the like of Brown and Blair today
  7. I profess myself mildly outraged that the tosser refers to 'bands of toy soldiers'.
  8. I'd love to be able to say let's get rid of the military, but:

    It's axiomatic that 'War is the continuation of politics by other means'

    so logically, we can't get rid of the army until we get rid of the politicians first.

    In which case, I'd be more than happy to.
  9. It's Saga, they've all got about ten minutes to live. Fcuk em.
  10. Target in front, in your own time.
    Carry on.

    As said in other threads:
    "I may not agree with what you are saying, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it"

    Or alternatively:
    Cheeky old Saga coach riding cnuts,bet they are the ones who got out of WWII with bad feet and similiar sh1t
  11. Yeah.

    And they smell of widdle.
  12. Ha ha, spot on JBM!

    As for not needing armed forces, the forces were run down just before the first and second world wars. Does that not suggest that the deterrence alone is fairly handy (i realise that its not nearly as simple as that).

    In a perfect world we wouldn't need an army, but this world is anything but perfect and we'd be fully screwed if we didn't have one, thank god that tit isn't in charge!
  13. Find the cunt's email address and post it. We can guarantee him plenty of spam email and sign him up for lots of nastiness. Then track him down and punch his lights in.
  14. I think you'll find it was Voltaire who said: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right to kick you up the flange for saying it."
  15. I thought Adrian was the one who posted on ARRSE not the saga site, but anyway most of the saga members are probably too young to have served during the second world war, remember they only have to be 50 that takes it back to 1957. Fcuk all of a sudden I feel old! The 1957 cut off means that they wouldn't even have National Service under their belt, they're children of the 60s and the peacenick generation like my uncle gods rot his soul.
    Most of the real older generation are still out there on the 11th, only have to watch the Cenotaph parade to see that they are still on side.